I've heard a lot of discussion about Strauss, but it took long enough for me to actually read him.

This volume has four essays on political philosophy.I've heard a lot of discussion about Strauss, but it took long enough for me to actually read him.

This volume has four essays on political philosophy. The first essay, which gives its title to the book, is about a history of obscure or 'esoteric' texts which are artificially difficult and do not discuss all of their ideas directly. This is done for two reasons - to avoid the suspicion of despots and others who want to censor these ideas, and to find other people who can take the effort to read such complicated books.

The other essays are variations on this theme. The essay on Maimonides, for example, shows how he integrated divergent, even heretical, views on Divine Providence in his Guide for the Perplexed.

This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. YoThis trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practicing some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent.

This deadpan discussion of the finer points of rhetoric clearly enjoys a wide reach, even if few are familiar with the title. Its clear influence are nearly every person who comments on Youtube, your high school classmates on Facebook, people who want to start bar fights, that uncle you only see on Thanksgiving who smells funny and nobody really wants to sit next to, and about ninety percent of everything said on television during the midterm elections.

Schopenhauer's treatise avoids most discussion on the philosophy of logic, saying that those ideas are long exhausted, and that it is necessary to engage in the art of rhetoric, which is in more common use. Some of the tactics discussed here include interrupting your opponent before he is about to win, using absurd propositions, associating his beliefs with some evil (today we can call this the argumentam ad Hitlerum), misinterpreting his arguments, evading his conclusions by asking multiple questions, using anecdotes to disprove larger assertions, questioning his motives for such an argument, and - this is most often the 'winner' - insulting him directly.

You can try these arguments on your friends, but be careful that you don't run out of tricks before you run out of friends. ...more

Unusual and innovative approach to literary analysis, eschewing close reading in favor of historical and quantitative approaches. His forebearers areUnusual and innovative approach to literary analysis, eschewing close reading in favor of historical and quantitative approaches. His forebearers are seldom other literary critics, but instead data analysts, the world-systems theorist Immanuel Wallerstein, and the evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould. A broader focus on historical trends which seems to be a fascinating supplement to conventional methods of literary theory. ...more

Ingenious little discussion about how many of the main concepts of economics are not empirically valid 'scientific' concepts, but are instead metaphysIngenious little discussion about how many of the main concepts of economics are not empirically valid 'scientific' concepts, but are instead metaphysical definitions. Also has some important considerations on how ideology often distorts attempts at empirical analysis. The main criteria for whether an economic doctrine is scientific is largely taken from Popper's question of falsifiability - whether it is specific enough that it can be proven false.

Two main points that contemporary readers will take issue with: The first is her usage of Popper's definition of 'falsifiability' as the proof of a genuine scientific method and the difficulty of conducting experiments with national economies, and the second is her reference to Keynesian methods - whether you're approaching this from the post-Keynesians or the monetarists, some of her assertions will appear out of date. Still, an interesting book. The first chapter is unequivocally the best....more

Not so much a dialectic as a succinct restatement of principles. Dr. Habermas comes down in favor of reason and communicative action, Cardinal RatzingNot so much a dialectic as a succinct restatement of principles. Dr. Habermas comes down in favor of reason and communicative action, Cardinal Ratzinger (as he was called then) doubts the perfectibility of human reason and cautions against the 'tyranny of the majority', as it is called in the United States. Both agree on finding a new set of principles to justify the continued legitimacy of secular states.

If anything, I completely admire their tone of mutual respect. If only all proselytizers of faith and reason were so communicative. Today I passed a street preacher who called women 'whores' and preached hellfire and received derisive jeers from the crowd. A tame example, I know, but faith and reason are more complicated things than that. These two old men in Bavaria have an understanding of why. ...more

This has obvious personal significance to me. As someone who has been through (and beaten) a severe illness, and seen friends go through other ailmentThis has obvious personal significance to me. As someone who has been through (and beaten) a severe illness, and seen friends go through other ailments, the main points of the book are incisive.

Life-threatening diseases are bad enough to deal with, of course. I won't go on about that. But one thing I've certainly noticed, and which Sontag expounds on at length, is how people impose different stereotypes upon you based on what disease you have. There's also the awful business of 'blaming the victim' depending on what affliction you have, and how only certain ailments are deserving of sympathy.

Now I should add that there is a link between mental health and the functioning of the immune system, so her case is not entirely waterproof. Still, this is a valuable look at what illness is, and a case of differing perceptions. ...more

This is a series of essays about the role of federal courts in interpreting common law and statutory law, with the centerpiece being an essay by AssocThis is a series of essays about the role of federal courts in interpreting common law and statutory law, with the centerpiece being an essay by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia's view is that there is no single unified method of jurisprudence today about the interpretation of laws, whether in law schools or in the courts themselves. His concern is on the undemocratic institution of non-elected judges passing decisions on statutory law, and his aim is to produce a more coherent philosophy of interpretation that does not necessarily rest on precedent or common law.

His personal belief is that of 'textualism', which focuses on the original intent of those who authored the laws, and that judges should not, and cannot, reinterpret the meaning of those laws. He disagrees with the overuse of legislative history and its usage in setting precedent. He is well aware of the usage of precedent and stare decisis, but is concerned over the differing interpretations which different judges could impose.

The following four essays discuss Scalia's proposals. The first, from history professor Gordon Wood, discusses the history of the judiciary branch in the United States, and says that Scalia raises questions which are even more intractable than even he anticipated. The second, form Laurence Tribe, wants to distinguish between abstract principles (as established in the Constitution, for example) and their more concrete mandates. The third essay, by Mary Ann Glendon, takes an comparative analysis approach, by investigating the 'civil law' cases as seen in Germany, where the main principles of the law are in a single main code. Finally, Ronald Dworkin finds inconsistencies within Scalia's argument, by noting the general abstractions within the constitution.

After all these, Scalia addresses their points in turn. He is largely in agreement with Glendon's approach, takes a few points against Wood, and all but gets into fisticuffs with Dworkin and Tribe.

Now I am obviously simplifying their arguments, (and I share Gordon Wood's bewilderment that I am even discussing this topic at all - I've only had some formal training in international law and my bare knowledge of con-law is largely self-taught). Though I often disagree with many of Scalia's decisions (admittedly, when they have been at my personal expense), he is presenting a clear and forceful argument for his own legal philosophy, and the debate which comes after is something enjoyable to read. ...more

In short, there is no single Grand Narrative about human history anymore. Not religion, nA short expository piece about the meaning of postmodernism.

In short, there is no single Grand Narrative about human history anymore. Not religion, not the Enlightenment, not Marxism, not tradition, nothing. Everybody has their own individual Narratives and none of these necessarily dominate.

The reasoning behind this is apparently based on Wittgenstein's later work of language games, except taken under much more specific circumstances, where a single minor variation of a meaning or usage can completely distort and create a new 'game'.

Seems vaguely interesting enough. The rest of this short tract is some formless criticism of the scientific method not being strict enough and being as valid as another person's hearsay. His own perception of science as its own linear progressive narrative seems to be at odds with other philosophers of science, especially Kuhn and Feyerabend. But then he adds some foggy predictions about the future of technology gone amok.

Now all this is about to make me throw up my hands and say 'enough'. Then, however, I remembered that this book was written in 1979 and so he is only making an educated guess about his future/our present. So if anything, he might fit in the same category as Herman Kahn, Michio Kaku, and Alvin Toffler. ...more

This is a book about geography and philosophy which falls under the method of Bachelard. Mainly, it probes the questions of how humans react experiencThis is a book about geography and philosophy which falls under the method of Bachelard. Mainly, it probes the questions of how humans react experience physical spaces. 'Space' here is a broad term which encompasses unfamiliar locations and stimuli, and 'place' refers more to the familiar, the intimate, and the known. As humans develop and have more experiences, the more the world is organized into systems of places.(Here he draws from the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget.)

The perceptions of spaces are not necessarily objective, of course. Tuan focuses on the framing of experiences caused by the human body, but also our imperfect conceptions of navigation and the role of crowds and cities. To further build upon these ideas, Tuan uses an impressive variety of sources. These include studies of Native American anthropology, architecture, sociology, and East Asian history.

The book is not a systematic set of answers, but it does raise many provocative questions. ...more

Though this book is often intended for the judicial branch, I might add that this book might also be of use to those in the legislative areas and thosThough this book is often intended for the judicial branch, I might add that this book might also be of use to those in the legislative areas and those who in any way discuss business or government policy. Cardozo discusses the limitations of attempting to adhere solely to a theoretical set of 'philosophy', but also the considerations of 'sociology', and the present demands of the public. A short, but incisive, legal work. ...more

Here is another case of a history book with an absurdly ambitious subtitle, but it's worth reading anyway. Durrant and Shankman 'only' make comparisonHere is another case of a history book with an absurdly ambitious subtitle, but it's worth reading anyway. Durrant and Shankman 'only' make comparisons between three sets of authors from the classical Greek and Chinese literary traditions. The Odyssey is compared to the Shijing, Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War is compared to Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, and Plato's Symposium and some of the more famous tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles are compared to Confucian and Taoist texts.

The book is a collaboration between a classicist and a Sinologist. As such, the scope and analysis of the book varies between and within chapters. They compare the scope of philosophy in the Greek and Chinese traditions, different perceptions of nature, and how different sides approached the writing of history.

For example: Thucydides wrote in contempt of past traditions and attempted to write objective history; Sima Qian attempted to tell the truth out of respect of past traditions. Thucydides wrote his history perhaps under the influence of contemporary tragedies and combining all of history into a narrative; Sima Qian instead draws from the lyric tradition.

These essays are only a fragmentary comparison of these philosophical traditions, but it is still a book worth reading. The afterword describes the deeply personal reasons why one would undertake such a massive undertaking into the history of philosophy:

As the Athenian stranger argues in Plato's Sophist, the forms of sameness and difference are interwoven throughout all the other forms that comprise reality. Confucius has a parallel insight in Analects 2.14 when he says that "A gentleman can see a question from all sides without bias. The small man is biased and sees a question from only one side. [...] Perhaps some emasure of community can be achieved through recognition, which is always accompanied by the experience of wonder, of the wisdom of such parallel insights drawn from very different traditions. It is this joyous and open-ended search for the discovery of similarity within profound difference that has challenged and motivated us in writing this book. We can only hope that these pages have captured something of the excitement we experienced in composing them.

This book is a hard read, but a deeply enjoyable one. You don't need to be conversant in both of these philosophical traditions to enjoy all of the connections and comparisons established here, but if you are familiar with one, you can work well with the rest. ...more

"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." These are the lines from the Greek poet Archilochus, and a little winding theme fro"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." These are the lines from the Greek poet Archilochus, and a little winding theme from which Berlin draws forth grand thoughts on literature and the philosophy of history.

Berlin is upfront in his definition of his 'intellectual game'. He proposes that a 'hedgehog' is a thinker who relates everything to a central system, and a 'fox' is a thinker who draws upon various subjects and is aware that they do not all fit in one single mold. Plato, Dante, Pascal, Nietzsche, and Proust are hedgehogs; Montaigne, Shakespeare, Goethe, and Joyce are foxes. This is necessarily a provocative list, and Berlin coyly suggests that these are not absolute guidelines and that there is plenty of space for further discussion.

For Tolstoy, as shown in War and Peace, is a fox who wants to be a hedgehog. He believed, perhaps to the depths of his soul, that history is a process grand, incomprehensible, and beyond the powers of individual to change or understand, and he thus affirmed that as one of his general principles. This intellectual paradox remained at the core of Tolstoy's thinking, and separates him from the other great Russians, who, as tormented as they were, remained closely affixed to their own sets of principles - even Dostoyevsky. The long digressions about history were, in fact, central to the book War and Peace.

War and Peace, Berlin was a refutation to the idea that all war and human behavior can be predicted. I might add that Tolstoy might even doubt in his own ability to depict all of human behavior on a grand scale. Why else would he include, in such a serious book, Pierre Bezukhov's drunken romp on a bear down the Neva river with a policeman strapped along for the ride? (unless, of course, this is normal behavior for Russian drinking bouts).

Now Tolstoy, when faced with these problems of history, developed a broad anarchist Christian humanism and rejected the corrupt power of the world he lived in. Berlin compares him to a contemporary named Joseph de Maistre - a reactionary French Catholic who held many of Tolstoy's premises, but came up with an entirely different solution. de Maistre was deeply pessimistic about human nature, and he held fast to the ideas of an absolute monarchy, which used religion as a means to make the people obedient. These are two, albeit strongly opposed, responses to the problems of history and human nature. Perhaps it could be said that these were the great problems of the 19th and 20th centuries.

All of these big ideas were compressed into ninety pages of clear, charming, prose. This is my first glance at the workings of a deeply stimulating mind. I look forward to seeing him again. ...more

Almost all of these jokes are supposed to illustrate some point in philosophy or critical theory. I'll add one for the sake of discussion:

A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends: “Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, it is true what I say. If it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: “Everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food. Movie theatres show good films from the west. Apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.”

I first read Nietzsche as a solemn young adolescent who saw it as his duty to oppose and tear down everything. I turned away from it for a while, butI first read Nietzsche as a solemn young adolescent who saw it as his duty to oppose and tear down everything. I turned away from it for a while, but now that I am a bit older I am starting to appreciate just how good Fritz can be.

Daybreak is one of Nietzsche's more obscure works - it's not as forceful as Beyond Good and Evil, not as poetic as Thus Spoke Zarathusthra, nor as deranged as Ecce Homo - but one which embodies the most discussed aspects of his philosophy. Nietzsche adheres to that aphoristic form which he so loves, but his approach here is from a few teasing questions which build into a more cogent whole. the role of morality and his critique of the Christian (mainly the 19th century German Protestant) concepts of sin, guilt, and punishment, which he views as parasitic to a more genuine morality (For a good example, see part 103). He looks back to his first loves, the ancient Greeks, and holds up the pre-Socratics as a past model of morality, and Thucydides as a honest chronicler of power.

Nietzsche never really goes away. He asks questions which reverberate within the human skull. He pounds away with a hammer at custom, at morality, at tradition, at even his own Germanness. His tart remarks here are later refined into something more subtle and powerful in the Genealogy of Morals, but there are still passages of wisdom here. My personal favorite is section 423, In the Great Silence, on the mocking silent beauty of nature. There is much to reread and pick from here....more

Habermas cannot write a small book. This is barely a pamphlet in size, but raises a thicket of questions on the crises of the modern state. He takes aHabermas cannot write a small book. This is barely a pamphlet in size, but raises a thicket of questions on the crises of the modern state. He takes a different turn to the problems of consciousness as described by other critical theorists, as instead he refers to the questions of language and interpretation.

Portions of this work are largely a reaction to the old Marxist idea of crises in late capitalism. Here, he largely accepts the idea of a social democratic 'compromise' where material needs are often satisfied. An economic crisis would occur when this flow of goods is no longer sustainable or sufficient, but a legitimation crisis is where modern democracies have to deal with solving its problems rationally, but also formation of a cultural identity and maintenance of the democratic process. The modern state thus no longer has to deal solely with economic management, but also cultural trends.

This is an exceedingly abstract and often complicated argument, and one that does not lend itself to easy summation (I am deliberately oversimplifying here). For him, the answer thus lies in rational communication, consensus and finally human dignity, whatever that means....more

Remember in Moby Dick where Melville goes on long tangents about the color white and whale anatomy? Gass is doing just that here, except with the coloRemember in Moby Dick where Melville goes on long tangents about the color white and whale anatomy? Gass is doing just that here, except with the color blue and fucking....more

So what is a list to Umberto Eco? -The shield of Achilles in The Iliad, which contains all

A list can be composed of:-Words-Images-Forms-Places-Things-So what is a list to Umberto Eco? -The shield of Achilles in The Iliad, which contains all

A list can be composed of:-Words-Images-Forms-Places-Things-Lists-Miracles-Collections and treasures-Characteristics of things-Their essences-An excess of things-A chaotic mess of things-An infinity

Who are the authors which Eco references and quotes from extensively to make his point?-Homer's passages in the Iliad of the troops assembled and the shield of Achilles-Hesiod's genealogy of the gods-Virgil's gods who rule the dead-Dante's of angels-Ausonius' fish-An occultists' angels and demons-Ariosto's landscapes-The witches' brew in Macbeth-Tom Sawyer's playthings-The musical instruments of Adrien Leverkuhn-The smells of Paris-The domains of the King of Israel in Ezekiel-The fog of London-The towns of Normandy-The cities in the atlas of the Great Khan-Walt Whitman's songs-Hugo's revolutionaries-The rivers of Anna Livia Plurabelle-The ineffable Aleph of Borges-Divine litanies and prayers-John Milton's demons-Syzmborska's preferences-The gems in the crown of Saint Stephen-Chalices in the Louvre-The contents of the Imperial Treasury of Vienna-Huysmans' golden rooms-Wunderkammers-The inventions of the New Atlantis-The grids of Los Angeles-The cods of Rabelais-Slothrop's reading-What Barthes likes-What Perec remembers-The libraries of Babel

Little remains of the work of Heraclitus. What we do have is justly called "fragments", a

The fairest order in the world is a heap of random sweepings.

Little remains of the work of Heraclitus. What we do have is justly called "fragments", and are either quotations or paraphrases which survive in other works. The longest fragment is a paragraph, but almost all the rest are either sentences or even phrases.

What we do have is often cryptic, but also compelling. He speaks about not trusting the old sages and the value of experience (Homer deserves to be beaten with a staff!), but on a vaguely cyclical movement of history, and the ignorant clumsiness of humanity. He speaks of a vague Logos, here translated as Word or Account, which is relative to human experience, and on a view of the world as being constantly in flux, with change being the only constant.

One of Heraclitus' most famous quotes, Fragment LI, is rendered into English as such: One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs.

Heraclitus was a deeply pessimistic philosopher, and many artistic depictions have him weeping. But within his cryptic utterances, I see a vague resemblance to Taoism and attempts to grasp with both hands the meaning of one's place in the world, and of the commonality of contradictions.

This edition includes not only the fragments, but some two hundred pages of critical analysis and notes. There is even a listing of the different arrangements of the fragments, apparently a major topic of debate in serious scholarship. This edition was extremely helpful to me, a rank amateur in pre-Socratic philosophy, but it might be a more useful one for the expert as well....more

First, I owe everyone a fair warning: The Žižek essay in this edition is one of the most incoherent things I've ever read, and has such a profound misFirst, I owe everyone a fair warning: The Žižek essay in this edition is one of the most incoherent things I've ever read, and has such a profound misunderstanding of Chinese history that I can't even start to criticize it. My God, he wiped his nose on the paper instead of writing.

So. This is a compilation of essays written by Mao which give a brief sampling of his thought. The earliest date from 1930, before the Long March, to 1964, a few years after the disaster of the Great Leap Forward. Some of these are rather stirring propaganda pieces, such as "A Single Spark can Start a Prairie Fire", the 1930 essay advocating his form of guerrilla warfare against the Kuomintang state led by Chiang Kai-Shek (Jiang Jieshi). "Combat Liberalism", a 1937 lecture, is still cited in leftist critiques of liberal democracy, and discounts it as an ideology of weakness and degeneracy.

However, we see the 'other' side of Mao here, too. In the 1955 talk, "The Chinese People Cannot be Cowed by the Atom Bomb", he takes a curiously cosmic philosophy towards the Cold War and nuclear weapons. Even if hundreds of millions die, there will still be enough to continue the revolution. If the human race is exterminated, the universe goes on. Take this as a personal philosophy or a bit of bluff, it is a deeply unsettling thing for the leader a major power to say in the cold war, even if he was bluffing in an attempt to create deterrence.

Most of the essays circle around his addition to Marxist philosophy, and the relationship between intellectual knowledge and practical experience. Both are necessary, in order to create a mass line. He takes it as a major conclusion that there are contradictions within society, and only through open debate can these ideas and contradictions be reconciled. This seems curiously like an Enlightenment idea, and possibly as a precursor to the Hundred Flowers Campaign. Mao may have expected some genuine debate when he temporarily opened up free speech, but the response was so enraging that he cut them all down anyway.

Any 're-evaluation' of Mao must take into accounts all sides of history, and what we now know about the present condition of China. It is tempting to split his biography into two sections: there is is the 'good Mao', from the 1920s to the mid 1950s, who saved hundreds of millions from poverty and united the country for the first time in a hundred years, but there is also the 'bad Mao' from the 1950s onward, who was directly responsible for economic mismanagement, famine, and stagnation. To try and separate these two 'parts' is, in my meager opinion, impossible and a waste of time. We can find examples in his career of his novelty in experiments and social progress, but also his strict adherence to dogma, or at least his own interpretation of it. Any serious attempt to deal with Mao's legacy must address the good and bad of both myth and history, and unfortunately this edition does neither.

Here my star rating is more than useless, it is confusing: the Žižek essay is abominable, but reading Mao was something worth grappling with, although I can't say I agree with him. How many stars does that get?...more

This is one of those damned pomo novels which defies any attempt at snappy categorization. It has a heavy influence from Wittgenstein both in style anThis is one of those damned pomo novels which defies any attempt at snappy categorization. It has a heavy influence from Wittgenstein both in style and philosophy, and talks a lot about being alone in the world and how names and facts lose their meaning.

To be frank, it's rather overwhelming, and I'm not really ready to articulate what I think about it yet. Writing about abstract concepts like history or philosophy is easy to me. Writing about people is hard....more

Once Zhuang Zhou dreamt he was a butterfly, fluttering about joyfully just as a butterfly would. He followed his whims exactly as he liked and knew noOnce Zhuang Zhou dreamt he was a butterfly, fluttering about joyfully just as a butterfly would. He followed his whims exactly as he liked and knew nothing about Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he awoke, and there he was, the started Zhuang Zhou in the flesh. He did not know if Zhou had been treaming he was a butterfly or if a butterfly was now dreaming it was Zhou.

Here is a serious and good work of philosophy comprised almost entirely of jokes, stories, anecdotes, metaphors, and mockery.

This is one of the two most popular books in the philosophy of Taoism, with the first being the Tao Te Ching. The book contains seven "Inner Chapters", which are all present in this edition, and twenty-six "Outer" and "Miscellaneous" Chapters, which are reproduced partially, and only some of which could be attributed to the historical Zhuangzi. Most could be attributed to his disciples, but some are almost entirely different, and possibly derived from another philosophical tradition.

It is in some ways similar to the Tao Te Ching, in that it emphasizes the Tao (道)- that is, the essence of the universe and existence, and Te (德) , or moral virtue (to use one possible translation). However, it adds onto that philosophy by emphasizing the limitations and differences between perspectives and language, and the infinity of existence versus the limitations of the human mind, adherence to one's nature, and a 'flowing' intuitive mind which is not forced into pigeon holes.

This is not told as such, of course, but pecked at from a series of conversations, anecdotes, and questions. It would be a mistake to say that the Zhuangzi is a book, but instead more of a collection of parables. There is the famous butterfly story, as seen above, but also questions about what fish consider 'beautiful', or what monkeys want to eat.

This edition by Zipporyn does not have the whole text, but it does an admirable job at explaining the tougher sentences and even explains the most inscrutable puns, translating them from 2,000 year old Classical Chinese. They also have a long section devoted to Taoist commentary dating from the Three Kingdoms Period (220-270 AD) to the modern era.

This is a read both light and heavy. If you're an avant-garde novelist, here's a place to steal a few ideas. ...more

You’re not Stalin and I’m not Stalin. Stalin is Soviet power. Stalin is what he is in the newspapers and the portraits, not you, not even me!-Joseph SYou’re not Stalin and I’m not Stalin. Stalin is Soviet power. Stalin is what he is in the newspapers and the portraits, not you, not even me!-Joseph Stalin lecturing his son on his own cult of personality

This is a strange and fascinating book combining elements of postmodern philosophy, Chinese history, and the American political system. Its main axis of analysis is on the 'First Emperor', Qin Shi Huangdi, and Presidents Reagan and Bush the First.

The first part of the book is an impressive summary of the history of the Qin state and its underlying political philosophy of Legalism, which I have written about at greater length elsewhere. But in summary: the all-powerful state continually mobilizes for war and action for its own sake, and places all other actions under surveillance. All parasitic functions, or any action outside of the state, are harmful and thus to be exterminated. Law is a force of standardization, of the imposition of power, to keep the people weak and divided, and the 'dismemberment' of the body politic and individual bodies.

However, such a state carries within it the mechanism for its own destruction, as it attempts to unify the population but tries to divide it by maintaining an unimpeachable authority - hence forming a 'suicide-state' when it can no longer maintain its control. The Qin Dynasty lasted about 15 years.

Now the more controversial application of this theoretical analysis is its application to the American Presidency, especially on Reagan, but partially on Bush the First. The focus on the Image and Body of the President serve as a symbol of, and mechanism for, the state, as a new form of Qin Shi Huang. Despite Reagan's age, the state projects youthfulness and vigor, and the necessity of a new conservative 'rebirth' of the state to go to war against external enemies and internal parasites. Bush the First failed because he unsuccessfully imitated Reagan's image of machismo. He was successful in starting wars in Reagan's image, but failed in maintaining power, and was largely 'absorbed' by the bureaucracy of the state.

This second section cribs its analysis and terminology from Lyotard, Deleuze, and Guattari, which I haven't read. The analysis is excessively theoretical and symbolic, with including the talk about missile-penises and Reagan's prostate. It contains little new about the Qin state itself, but is fascinating in its connection to the 'Imperial Presidency'. The heavy theoretical approach is off-putting but provocative. The analysis also tends to ignore the role of 'markets' and business in Reagan's ideology.

We lice have little recourse in this analysis. There are a few symbolic codes for action here, but they seem half-hearted. There is instead a grim reminder: "Liberation is never of the human, it is only ever from it," whatever that means....more

Short aphoristic tract about materialism, advertising, and how many aspects of public life are not reflections of real attitudes, but are instead artiShort aphoristic tract about materialism, advertising, and how many aspects of public life are not reflections of real attitudes, but are instead artificial, and how consumerism sometimes embody aspects of a religious dogma.

Debord may even be more right than he knew. Even rebellion, not only that of the 1960s but also the present day, has been made into a commodity.

Machiavelli is a man who seems to need no introduction. The man has had a reputation for ruthlessness and villainy from the time of Frederick the GreaMachiavelli is a man who seems to need no introduction. The man has had a reputation for ruthlessness and villainy from the time of Frederick the Great to Tupac.

Such controversy continues in academia as well. Machiavelli wrote not just The Prince, but also works on classical history such as The Discourses on Livy, where he could be said to advocate a form of return to classical republics and mixed representation of powers. With such contradictions, it has been a topic of spirited debate over what Machiavelli really meant, and whether one of these books would take precedence over the other.

Bobbitt, in this short primer on Machiavelli's thought, comes up with a unique approach to these problems. He sees Machiavelli as a precursor to the modern state structured by the rule of law (a precursor to Thomas Hobbes), and one who recognized the changes in statecraft necessary as transitions from feudalism into larger states which require bureaucracies.

The most enduring trait of Machiavelli's thought, and one that arguably survives most strongly today, is his emphasis on the 'real' instead of an 'ideal' view of politics. He has little patience for those who describe politics as an ideal goal, but instead draws from his own experiences in describing the manipulation and cunning necessary to make political entities survive. He says that evil acts such as deception and violence might have to be done in order to preserve the state. However, evil should not be done indiscriminately, or else the ruler of the state would lose legitimacy and the right to rule.

Would it be fair to turn to Machiavelli for advice today? Perhaps, although no politician would ever admit to it. Most troubling today is his tacit acceptance of torture, provided it was for the good of the nation. Machiavelli had his arms broken by the Medicis after false accusations, but this seems to have done little to change his mind.

The book concludes with some outlandish speculation over Machiavelli would have prophesied the present role of corporations and the modern form of governance. He may have been successful in seeing the next century, but the next five would be more of a stretch.

Machiavelli will continue to remain as relevant as ever, and this book will be a useful companion to The Prince and The Discourses on Livy. If there is a broad lesson about History here, it is that History will move according to the dictates of Fortuna, and a mere politician will best maneuver themselves to survive these whims, not to change them....more